“iPhone University” Pulls Classrooms Into Future

Feb. 28 - Nine months ago, two weeks prior to Apple’s release of the iPhone, high-ranking officials from various universities met with Apple executives to discuss a concept called “iPhone University.” This concept represents Apple’s second attempt to integrate its products in the education market. Apple tried this once in the mid-1990’s with getting the Apple II into elementary and high school classrooms. This time around, Apple arguably has a much stronger product base to establish itself as an effective tool in enhancing the education experience.

Apple executives envision iPhone University as an iPhone or iPod touch for every student enrolled in a college or university. When students arrive in the Fall, their iPhone or iPod is included in tuition and is ready to connect to the University’s wireless network. There, students can download class notes and presentations, check meal plan or account balances, participate in discussion groups, and even get directions to their professor’s offices. It would be easy to imagine that campus-wide emergency broadcast systems would be included in the program. Abeline Christian Univeristy (ACU), one of the five colleges adopting “iPhone University,” already uses many of these features. Other schools participating in the pilot program include Stanford, Yale, Harvard, and MIT.

“iPhone University” comes at the perfect time to integrate wi-fi and smartphone technology with the higher educaiton experience. Students more connected to the University arguably creates a sense of loyalty and personal investment into the education, including campus-wide public safety. Additionally, a versatile mobile device such as the iPhone will allow students to perform many more functions at much faster rates than before. It is impressive that one device has the potential to affect so many students on such an immediate level.

With that being said, why didn’t technology companies think of this sooner? Why did technology companies not capitalize on Apple’s failed idea from the 1990’s? Campus-wide wireless networks have been in place for the last several years. Many smart phones created before the iPhone have the capability to display graphics, e-mails, and the Internet (despite being limited). With iPhone and iPod’s popularity firmly supplanted, it will be difficult for new market entrants to stop this expansion. It had to happen sooner. “iPhone University” demonstrates foresight, as well as insight, giving Apple a second uninhibited attempt at integrating its product line in the education market.

Apple Insider reports it here. For a demonstration video, click here.

Update: Sprint Joins The Cell Phone Price Plan Battle

Feb. 28 - Sprint announced a $29.5 billion loss for the fourth quarter, writing down much of the leftover value of the Sprint-Nextel merger from the summer of 2005. CEO Dan Hesse conceded that the fourth quarter results were lower than expected and that organizational shifts he plans to make will not take effect immediately. Citing fourth quarter losses and over one million subscribers leaving last year alone to competitors, Sprint also announced a lowering of it’s price for unlimited voice and data “Simply Everything (SM)” plans to compensate:

$89 a month for unlimited voice plans

$99 a month for unlimited voice and data

This immediate shift seems to be an about face when Sprint, just last week, declined to join the AT&T, Verizon Wireless, & T-Mobile price battle.

This decision shows a weak spot in the Sprint decision-making team. This recent announcement undercuts the board and senior management’s credibility and ability to look as though they are calm, collected, and deliberative. Rather, their decisions are starting to look like knee-jerk reactions to competitors and as though they are simply catering to industry analysts.

Sprint’s announcement is here.

New York Times discusses the announcement here.

Washington Post has it here.

(In the interest of transparency, the chritic has family employed by Sprint. That family member did not contribute to this article.)

En Garde: The Battle for the Unlimited Cell Phone Plan

Verizon Wireless, AT&T Wireless, and T-Mobile recently waged a price war for unlimited use calling plans on their respective networks. The three cellular companies have unlimited calling plans starting at $99 a month. Verizon customers can upgrade to unlimited messaging an extra $20; that same customer can have unlimited messaging, email, and video to anywhere in the country for $40. AT&T’s customers can upgrade to unlimited data usage for $35 a month. T-Mobile left out any word of data plan add-ons. Sprint admitted they will not join the $99 unlimited calling plan bandwagon.

Putting aside Sprint’s decision to remain uncompetitive, this move signals a positive development for the cellular telephone market. Wireless carriers are beginning to realize that as technologies converge, price plans for services should follow suit. People are tired with the nickel and dime-ing that has taken place over the last few years based on varying usage of multiple features. The piecemeal approach of charging per text, per email, per web launch forces the customer to think more about if the can say something rather than what they can say. Bravo to unlimited calling and data plans for the everyday users on everyday phones.

As much of an epiphany as this business model shift ends up being, it may be a lateral shift in terms of price for now. For example, prior to the announcement, Verizon had 1350 minutes for $99 with $45 added on for unlimited data (on a blackberry). Unlimited calling plans started at $119, totaling $165 for unlimited usage. Is a $25 price drop earth-shattering? Maybe not when the user is willing to spend well over a hundred dollars each month for the service in the first place.

Overall, this is good news for the consumer and for the cellular usage market. Cheaper access to broadband wireless could spur higher demand and faster innovation in wireless devices.

Product Review: Palm Centro (GSM)

Palm recently announced the release of a low-priced smart phone on the AT&T network (available for purchase here).

The Palm Centro – Granite White

Specs:

Device Technology: Quad-band, GSM
Network: AT&T
Operating System: Palm OS 5.4.9
Height: 4.2 in.
Width: 2.1 in.
Depth: 0.7 in.
Weight: 4.4 oz.
Screen Dimensions: 320 x 320 pixels, 2.2 in. diagonally
Keyboard: QWERTY
Other features: Xpress mail, AOL Instant Messenger, Yahoo messenger, Calendar Sync (Outlook and iCal), Bluetooth GPS, Push-to-Talk, Camera, XM Radio.

Overall rating: (Three of Five Bars)

Pros:

1. Cost – Starting at $99 signing after a two-year agreement with AT&T, this smart phone is much more accessible than the iPhone, Blackberry, Blackjack, or the like.

2. XM Radio – A satellite-ready communication device allows more music options for the user, which many smart phones lack. This is a solid compromise for its small storage capacity (up to 4 gb with expansion card) and a unique feature that makes the product more appealing.

3. Infrared & Wireless Transfer – This feature is a strong anticipatory innovation to the wireless generation of technology devices. Though many people will not be able to use this service until infrared and wireless transfer becomes universal, it shows that Palm is thinking ahead. On the other hand, the infrared may just be reminiscent of the Palm devices from the late 1990s. Microsoft’s embracing of infrared, Bluetooth, and wireless transfer may be a signal that this technology has a future.

Cons:

1. 1.3 Mega-pixel Camera: This low-end camera seems to be where Palm decided to sacrifice technology for the price. Most new smartphones start at 2.0 mexa-pixels. Such a disparity looks like this phone is behind right out of the starting gate.

2. Battery Life/Talk Time – “Up to 3 hours”: People using smart phones need the maximum allowable talk time and use of portable devices. Even the iphone, which includes other multimedia features and was highly criticized for its battery life, has a longer battery life at full use than three hours (8 hours of talk time, 6 hours of internet).

3. Lack of wireless connectivity: Being on the EDGE (2.5 G) wireless network, Palm should have anticipated buildings where wireless area network connectivity is common and could compensate for weak cellular network signal strength.

4. No touch screen: Granted, this would make the device much more expensive. Future smart phone technology, however, seems inevitably to be moving in this direction. When sacrificing quality for price, it may not be worth it to sacrifice thinking ahead.

Overall:

Palm has had a rough history for the last several years as innovative smart phones quickly dated the Palm Pilot series. This launch seems to be a self-recognized second-tier phone for the frugal smart phone shopper. This product seems to beg the question: If the smart phone is designed for the better-off business person (mobile email, web browsing, etc.), what strength is there in a lower end phone with features a non-business person likely will not use? Perhaps the less-than average music and media functions will be the saving grace of the Palm Centro for AT&T.

Sprint Leaves Northern Virginia for Kansas, Seeks Refuge in the Past

Feb. 14 - Sprint recently finalized its decision to relocate its headquarters from Reston, Virginia to Overland Park, Kansas. The company has wrestled back and forth with two main operations centers since the merger between Sprint and Nextel in 2006. CEO Dan Hessee also announced plans to cut 4,000 jobs in the Washington area. Former Nextel executive Daniel Ackerson said it this deals a “blow” to the technology region, in the wake of AOL’s recent relocation of headquarters to New York. The Washington Post detailed a report about the announcement here.

More than a blow to the region, Sprint’s announcement seems more like a blow to its own reputation in the wireless telecommunications field. When people think technology, they think California, Seattle, New York, and Northern Virginia. Secondary markets like Montgomery County, Maryland may see small spurts of growth. Kansas, however, is a step in the wrong direction for Sprint. Image means quite a lot in the fast-paced telecom world. Company executives should take care that drastic steps don’t send the wrong message.

Sprint’s merger with Nextel brought the challenge of combining two business juggernauts into one seamless operation. Additionally, Sprint had the perfect opportunity to move away from the old mindset (think of Murphy Brown commercial for ten cents a minute long distance or the mid-nineties PCS system). Sprint could grab on to Nextel’s surge in subscriber base (largely resulting from the NASCAR Nextel Cup Series), adopt the innovative appeal of Nextel’s network, and move forward as a company. Additionally, they had the opportunity to relocate to an area more associated with high technology.

Mr. Hessee’s announcement demonstrates the company’s desire to appeal traditional ways, revert back, and Sprint away from the future and towards the past, rather than “Sprint ahead.” Hessee seeks to bring the two cultures together by uprooting the newer, more progressive Nextel from its home and transplanting it in the middle of a flyover state. Granted, neither party wanted to relocate. When reconciling all of the company’s interests, however, it seems like the more realistic option would be to a place closer to the action, closer to the Federal Communications Commission, and closer to the future. With projects such as Fourth Generation Wi-Max launching in Washington, DC, it seemed inevitable that the company would remain close to its initial market.

Sprint is an innovative company and undoubtedly has a lot of tricks ready for the unveiling. This decision simply seems out of place and leaves local technology experts scratching their heads trying to understand the reasoning.

(In the interest of transparency, the chritic has family that Sprint employs. That family member had no contribution to this piece.)

Where Social and Professional Networking Part Ways

Feb. 11 – “Get Linked In or Get left out?” Hardly. The wildfire of social networking copycats continues to spread despite a saturation of the market and many sites missing the point.

Technology companies are trying to transcribe the success of Facebook and MySpace in the professional world. Some are new; some are growing and developing. Yahoo! launched “Kickstart,” a social networking site for college students and young professionals. Doostang, a private, invite-only professional networking site boasts unique professional profiles aimed at advancing users’ careers. Jobster has a modern user interface with the same aspirations. The juggernaut of professional networking, however, is “Linked in” – over 12.5 million users and growing.

Linked in boasts several successes to appear more marketable to potential users. The site includes all ranks of employees, from data input technicians to CEO’s. “See, we appeal to all age groups: baby boomers and the Internet generation.” The site grabs a user’s email, work information, and all other potential contacts to demonstrate just how connected members actually are. “Look how easy it is to connect to everyone you’ve ever contacted.” In theory, all of these features should create the most effective professional network users can imagine. Why then, do many urban professionals and recent graduates find themselves signing up for Linked in only to leave it for months at a time and rarely employ the benefits of such a resourceful rolodex?

There are several reasons to explain why the professional social network may not be catching on AND working like Facebook and Myspace. First, and most important, a site needs daily traffic. The user traffic keeps people involved in the development of the site. Social networking sites require user-base daily traffic with simple services. Facebook and Myspace have dozens of sub-features such as blogs, videos, and comment postings which serve as personal expressions of the user. Link-In generates traffic when users update a resume or look for a promotion. How often does that happen? If the user is interested in a stable career, not more than once every six months. With lighter traffic comes lighter interest and less upkeep.

Second, and related to the first point, online communities feed on instant gratification. A quick laugh from a funny comment board or an intriguing link provide quick and easy entertainment. Instant gratification that keeps people engaged is virtually non-existent in the professional networking arena. So a user adds a contact- then what? The user sets up a profile, baits the hook and waits (almost indefinitely) for someone to bite. Constant emails updates saying, “Someone has written a fun message on your wall, check it out!” is much more engaging than, “You now have a new contact that likely will do nothing for your career.”

Third, Linked in sets up the expectation that the user will advance their career simply by joining. The bright colors and multiple illustrations of people networking create the impression that the moment users create a profile, their inboxes will be full of new job offers for CEO positions. Professional advancement is something people have to work hard to establish. Making connections is the first step. Aside from introducing and recommending contacts, Linked in does little to help users with the follow through techniques that are necessary for professional development.

Fourth, the interests of the two networking sites are diametrically opposed to each other. Social networking sites started as another way to better understand people in your community. Secondary purposes, such as reuniting old friends, developed after. The profiles depend on creative personal expression: photographs, journal entries, favorite books, quotes, sites, and groups. This keeps users entertained. Working professionals want to keep their portfolio as simple and substantive as possible with a clean divide between work and play: education, career, and a few interests that show a personality without giving too much away. Quite simply: boring without putting the reader to sleep. Too much creativity in the professional world up front is, unfortunately, a turnoff.

This is not to say that professional networking sites are dead or dying. As previously mentioned, many business fields are attempting to replicate the Facebook/Myspace business model. The foundational concept may be of some use. The potential for the Internet to facilitate business relationships is endless. Before the wildfire continues to grow, however, investors in the technology arena should carefully consider what makes social networking sites tick and whether or not the same ticking will take place when transcribing business models into new fields.

Rescue Me. What Microsoft Can do for Yahoo! (Updated)

Feb. 8 – Assuming that Microsoft jumps through the infinite regulatory hurdles and pleases the masses of Yahoo! shareholders, Microsoft has a lot of work to do with the nearly-outdated search engine. The New York Times discuss here whether or not it is too late for Yahoo! to remain an independent viable competitor with Google. I have faith that with the right innovation, several things can be done to turn around Yahoo!. Microsoft’s acquisition is not a necessary condition for this to take place; it does, however, present an excellent opportunity for a comprehensive overhaul Yahoo.com needs to remain competitive.

Here are five things that Yahoo! did wrong or is still doing wrong that need to change in order to re-invent itself:

1. Give the homepage a face lift – I know that Yahoo!’s classic look is the infinite links, the ads, the current event’s box, weather, and on and on. The numerous boxes and superfluous colors, however, are reminiscent of websites from 1999 (see the 1995 page here that demonstrates few changes and a general lack of the site’s evolution). People are no longer impressed with so much information in one spot. In fact, it begins to look obtrusive and busy. Yahoo! tried a face lift a few months back, but it was in the wrong direction (click here for the site before the most recent update). They need to simplify, rather than have more of the same.

Even with the majority of the Internet community moving towards broadband download speeds, all of that information takes time to process and is distracting. MSNBC and CNN recognized this within the last 12 months and grossly simplified their homepages (click to compare old and new sites for MSNBC and CNN). Google’s minimalist approach may be an over-swing of the pendulum, but something in the middle must be employed.

2. Update the logo – Normally, I would not advise changing a company’s logo, but this is a drastic case. People associate the current logo with a feeling of being outdated and behind the times. A lot has happened since the mid-1990’s when that logo came out. The internet has had waves of ideological change in terms how companies portray themselves. Even AOL updated it’s logo post-Time Warner acquisition (from this to this – same concept, modern look). Even if Yahoo offers the best services, people will continue to associate the company as a second-place player behind newer, more innovative companies. Yahoo! doesn’t have to drop the “!” or its name entirely, just modify and modernize the look. A company should never be afraid to re-invent itself.

3. Limit the number of obtrusive ads – Ads from Yahoo! are often bright, animated, and very distracting. This includes ads on the homepage, as well as within the email system. If I am writing an email, or reading one for that matter, the ads with high colors and complex animation are so distracting I find it hard to concentrate. Additionally, remove the “signature line” ads from its users’ emails when they send messages. When I see an email, and at the very end it says, “Check out the new Yahoo! Cars,” it looks like a cheap shameless plug to get me to look at the website. A company with the prestige of Yahoo! doesn’t need to resort to start-up company tactics. Moreover, young professionals hesitate to use Yahoo! mail as their primary email if their communications with employers and other professionals include this type of advertising.

3a. On the subject of email, Microsoft and Yahoo might even want to collapse their two email services into one and create a new product. Yourname “@hotmail.com” is no longer “hot” and “@yahoo.com” is no longer exciting. Combine all users into one email system and create a new domain name that represents an innovative email system.

4. Don’t be afraid to be innovative – Yahoo! came out with “Answers” a while back, which I find both informative as well as entertaining. Since then, I have heard little of new services (there may be some, I just haven’t heard of any). Yahoo! should place more emphasis on products such as these that make its site more interactive with its users. I am not sure of taking it to the extreme of creating a social networking site like Facebook within Yahoo!, but something that draws in a crowd. Don’t create copycat services to sites already in existence. Create new ideas. Once Yahoo! comes up with more products and services like this, press hard to market to people the new feature and make it known to people all over the internet.

5. Integrate the user with all of Yahoo! products – The growing trend for new websites is how successfully they can serve as a dashboard for people’s lives. Keeping email together with calendars, pictures, and favorite websites is critical. Making a one-stop shop for people’s lives makes sure they don’t have to go anywhere else. Services like “My Yahoo!” are a step in the right direction, but what I am talking about goes beyond that. I mean creating programs that sync calendars on your Outlook, iCal, and other organization programs all in one place. This includes being able to share calendars and other vital information with other users.

There are many more ideas that may contribute to Yahoo!’s overhaul that would modernize its appeal and success with current Internet users. The five mentioned above only serve as a starting point.

AT&T Announces Nationwide 3G Network

Feb. 6 – AT&T officially announced plans to implement a nationwide 3G
wireless network in an effort to “cast a wider net for mobile customers this year.” This announcement comes on the heels of the FCC approving AT&T’s purchase 12 mhz of the 700-mhz nationwide spectrum for a cost of $2.5 billion. This portion is not part of the FCC auction currently in progress.

This news seems to be marginal in light of current events at the FCC. While this announcement paves the way for AT&T to establish the infrastructure for the eagerly-anticipated 3G iphone, the 700-mhz auction currently in progress deserves strict attention with respect to the future of 3G wireless networks (click here for the auctions current status). It is important not to lose sight of the 3G’s big-picture development.

The 3G iphone will help undoubtedly help AT&T’s push into the third-generation wireless market. There are many players, however, on the verge of entering the lucrative and innovative field. New market entrants hope to shake up traditional business models, including that of AT&T. For example, Google’s commitment of $4+ billion to a portion of the open-network portion of the C-Block, coupled with commitments to an open-platform cellular operating system, could quickly drive the direction of 3G wireless services.

This is not to ignore the partnership between Apple and AT&T and its effect on the smart phone/wireless broadband market. They have contributed substantial improvement and awareness to future wireless capabilities. This is not to say, however, that this partnership will swallow the 3G wireless movement whole. We have yet to see what companies, such as Verizon and Sprint, have planned to attempt dominance in the wireless market. Stay tuned.

Apple releases larger-memory iphone, ipod touch

Tuesday, Feb. 5 – Apple (AAPL) announced release of a 16 gb iphone (retail $499) along with a more substantial 32 gb ipod touch (retail $499). Both products feature the same wireless and user-interface capability as previous versions.

Additionally, reports have circulated that the iphone market share for smart phones has increased to 28 percent in less than nine months since release in June 2006. Apple Insider reports here, citing British market research firm Canalys’ report dictating recent market trends in smart phone purchases.